john5746

I don't understand how anything that requires the servitude of another could be considered a right. On the other hand, the government acts like it is a right for any criminal or POW. I think with universal coverage, we would need to narrowly define what services are really covered. Preventative measures should be favored over expensive life saving treatments. Currently, we seem to have the worst of both worlds. Its harder for a self employed citizen to get a routine check up than an illegal immigrant can get emergency care.

Probably. I doubt Obama will bring a Reagan like recovery, since this depression is more systemic in nature, so if he brings some success, they will argue it could have been much better and quicker with their plan. If it is seen as a failure, then they win by default as you said.

From my experience, this is normal for Youtube. They suspend accounts and give very little feedback to the user. It happens too frequently. I agree that one video, not the whole site should be suspended, but if its a DMCA deal, then I think they just suspend the whole site. We will see.

I agree as well. The more they use that space for its original intent, the better. If Europe and Japan had taken the same approach, they would have whole cities that were just memorials.

If they tax it like cigs, I think there would still be a big demand for under the table sales. I'm wonder how the black market for tobacco is going. And it's so easy to roll a joint, no filter or fancy taste needed.

you mean species. I would be bias towards my species, so I feel pain when my species is damaged. One exception would be if this species is very helpful to us or helpful to the ecology and almost extinct. Then, I would consider offering myself to help them.

Well, I'm in the Bible belt portion of the US and the norm is to have eyes roll and gasps! It seems like "partner" is used often. In fact, we had a speaker visit who was talking about breaking down barriers and removing bigotry from the workplace. She mentioned her company and her partner. She then said "not that kind of partner".

I agree, we seem to be programmed to think that the boss should be smarter and more knowledgeable than ourselves, thus demanding more money. We want more money than those we lead. They know the competition will pay that person $X dollars, so they will pay that to get them on their team. I do think we overvalue people at the top, thinking they can do something that no one else can do. Assuming they will save the company/team.

Judging by the pole results and this thread, it seems that the government should use a different name for all marriages, then the term marriage can be left for society to define. I think the younger generation would refer to gay couples as married and this would eventually become the norm in society.

All of the above can be married. Next.

I believe the thinking was that unlike one airline going bankrupt, it would be as if all the airlines would be grounded, causing a ripple effect that would shutdown other areas of the economy, etc. More like a power company. Judging from the aftermath, I think they were probably correct. When an airline is under bankruptcy, people will still fly with them if the price is right. Not so sure with banks or even car companies. They need to be there longer than just a flight to do business with them.

Damn, add beer and mice live in a fraternity.

The closer the animal is to a human, the more relavent the test. So, your choice 1) Test procedures on a mouse, dog, chimp, etc. 2) Do not try new procedures

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLJ2gzRRfTYc_YuS7r1yuwnmne-gD970K3CG0 This article is a comedy and tragedy. The Pope wants to run away from modernity, while criticizing other superstitious beliefs.

That's the idea I think, so they need to test it. If you don't want animal testing, then you don't want them to push frontiers like this one. Unless China starts getting into the business and tests prisoners and other undesirables.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602319.html I liked this article. Who jests the court jester?

I've never found this argument compelling at all, since in retrospect, many things have to happen for any one thing to happen. For example, if you go back and change small things in the lives of any one of your ancestors, then you may not have existed. On a more general level, how do we know something is designed? Mt. Rushmore vs the Grand Canyon. A house on the beach vs the shoreline. Do we not contrast it with things that are not man-made? If we say nature itself is designed, then where is the non-designed stuff to compare? If we say nature is not designed locally, on a small scale then why must it be designed on a large scale?

True, but then Stewart wants to be taken seriously when it suits him. This interview is case in point.

well, they could also define civil unions as between only a man and woman, because as we all know, the arguments against homosexual marriage are not religiously based.

I voted to keep the word marriage and define it, although if it would be much easier to pass the civil union legislation, it would be fine by me. I think most of the boundaries that define marriage today are secular, not religious in nature. Age of consent, race, number of people for example. People of various religious backgrounds and even atheists get married, without trampling on anyone's religious rights. People also get blood transfusions and other medical procedures without trampling on religious rights. People use electricity without trampling on religious rights. And people speak without trampling on religious rights(well, some think not being offended is a right). Marriage has a legal and spiritual definition. I think all people have no problem with that separation, until it comes to homosexuality. So, I say it should be legally defined as the union of two adults and that it should be a federal issue, not a state issue. Bah, rights without protection is like money without trust. These "inalienable" rights had to be fought for several times and will be fought for in the future. Choosing not to put them up to an easy vote still doesn't guarantee that they will always exist.

Yes, I think that's the major point. Rush has made at least half of his living by declaring that liberals want America to fail. But he is the poster boy for hypocrisy. I understood that long ago.

Sometimes because it isn't better - at least for most people.

The earth twin experienced 10 years of time, the space twin experienced very little. The space twin traveled thru much space, but the earth twin traveled little in comparison. They do not have to experience the same amount of space or the same amount of time.

IMO, the embryo's ability to live only exists due to the woman. As long as the embryo is in the womb, the woman has the right to abort. Maybe there are practical reasons, such as physical or emotional danger to the woman that we decide not to abort at a certain stage, not sure. But once the baby is out, it is a citizen with full rights. As for life itself, I think suffering of the individual is not really the point, since we know that one can kill without inflicting any lasting pain. But, we do not want to live in a society where it is common to be killed or have loved ones killed at any moment - that would be hell. Can we say the same of women getting abortions? Does that really cause so much pain and grief for third parties? Not as much as forcing women to have the babies or get shady abortions, IMO.

True and this is a decent system for general competition. But, with an epidemic like the current situation, its a bit like arguing against AIDS medicine, since this will only prolong the infected lives. Better to let them die quickly and get out of the way. Some mistakes were made and we are in a mess. The efficient thing might be to let everything tank and do a cold reboot. That doesn't mean its the best path.